Abstract
This chapter shows that belief revision about global warming can be modeled by a theory of explanatory coherence that has previously been applied to many cases of scientific belief change. We present a computer simulation of how current evidence supports acceptance of important conclusions about global warming on the basis of explanatory coherence. In addition, we explain resistance to these conclusions using a computational model of emotional coherence, which shows how political and economic goals can bias the evaluation of evidence and produce irrational rejection of claims about global warming. Finally, we argue that explanatory coherence gives a better account of belief revision than major alternatives including logicist and Bayesian theories.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Arrhenius, S. 1896. On the influence of carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature of the ground. Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science 41:237–276.
Eliasmith, C., and P. Thagard. 1997. Waves, particles, and explanatory coherence. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 48:1–19.
Flannery, T. 2006. The weather makers. Toronto: Harper Collins.
Gärdenfors, P. 1988. Knowledge in flux. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books.
Gärdenfors, P. (ed.) (1992). Belief revision. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gore, A. 2006. An inconvenient truth. Emmaus, PA: Rodale.
Gottlob, G., F. Scarcello, and M. Sideri. 2002. Fixed-parameter complexity in AI and nonmonotonic reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 138:55–86.
IPCC. 2007. IPCC Fourth assessment report. Retrieved July 18, 2008, from http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-syr.htm
Lomborg, B. 2007. Cool it: The skeptical environmentalist’s guide to global warming. Toronto, ON: Random House.
Nowak, G., and Thagard, P. 1992a. Copernicus, ptolemy, and explanatory coherence. In Cognitive models of science, ed. R. Giere, vol. 15, 274–309. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Nowak, G., and Thagard, P. 1992b. Newton, descartes, and explanatory coherence. In Philosophy of science, cognitive psychology and educational theory and practice, eds. R. Duschl, and R. Hamilton, 69–115. Albany, NY: SUNY.
Olsson, E. 2005. Against coherence: Truth, probability, and justification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rott, H. 2000. Two dogmas of belief revision. Journal of Philosophy 97:503–522.
Tennant, N. 1994. Changing the theory of theory change: Towards a computational approach. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 45:865–897.
Tennant, N. 2003. Theory-contraction is NP-complete. Logic Journal of the IGPL 11:675–693.
Tennant, N. 2006. New foundations for a relational theory of theory-revision. Journal of Philosophical Logic 35:489–528.
Thagard, P. 1989. Explanatory coherence. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 12:435–467.
Thagard, P. 1992. Conceptual revolutions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Thagard, P. 1999. How scientists explain disease. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Thagard, P. 2000. Coherence in thought and action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Thagard, P. 2003. Why wasn’t O. J. convicted? Emotional coherence in legal inference. Cognition and Emotion 17:361–383.
Thagard, P. 2004. Causal inference in legal decision making: Explanatory coherence vs. Bayesian networks. Applied Artificial Intelligence 18:231–249.
Thagard, P. 2006. Hot thought: Mechanisms and applications of emotional cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Thagard, P. 2007. Coherence, truth, and the development of scientific knowledge. Philosophy of Science 74:28–47.
Thagard, P., and A. Litt. (2008). Models of scientific explanation. In The Cambridge handbook of computational psychology, ed. R. Sun, 549–564. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Thagard, P., and K. Verbeurgt. 1998. Coherence as constraint satisfaction. Cognitive Science 22:1–24.
van Rooij, I. 2008. The tractable cognition thesis. Cognitive Science 32:939–984.
Weart, S.R. 2003. The discovery of global warming. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix
Appendix
Input to the ECHO simulation of the acceptance of the claim that global warming is caused by humans.
Global warming: A simplified model of anthropogenic forcing vs. natural causes.
Evidence:
E1. Average global temperatures have risen significantly since 1880.
E2. The rate of warming is rapidly increasing.
E3. The recent warming is more extreme than any other warming period as far back as the record shows to 1000 AD.
E4. Arctic ice is rapidly melting and glaciers around the world are retreating.
E5. Global temperature shows strong correlation with carbon dioxide levels throughout history.
IPCC/Gore’s facts
GF1. Carbon dioxide, methane gas, and water vapour are greenhouse gasses.
GF2. Greenhouse gasses absorb infrared radiation, some of which is reemitted back to the Earth’s surface.
GF3. Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have been increasing since the beginning of the industrial revolution.
IPCC/Gore’s main hypotheses: “Anthropogenic forcing”
GH1. There is a greenhouse effect that warms the planet.
GH2. The greenhouse effect has the potential to be enhanced.
GH3. Global warming is a human caused crisis.
Secondary hypotheses
GH4. Increasing the concentration of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere directly increases the warming of the Earth.
GH5. Small changes in global temperature have the potential to drastically upset a variety of climate systems through causal interactions.
Opposing hypotheses/beliefs
NH1. Long term cycling of Earth’s orbital parameters, solar activity and volcanism and associated aerosols are natural causes that can warm the globe.
NH2. The impact of natural factors on global temperature dwarfs the enhanced greenhouse effect.
NH3. Climate systems will be affected by natural cycles and fluctuations.
NH4. Global warming is natural and not a concern.
SH1. Small changes in temperature will not have significant negative effects on global climate.
Explanations:
Gore’s explanations:
of the enhanced greenhouse effect and anthropogenic forcing.
explain (GF1, GF2) GH1
explain (GH1, GH4) GH2
explain (GH2, GF3, GH5) GH3
of the evidence:
explain (GH2, GH3) E1
explain (GH2, GH3) E2
explain (GH2, GH3, GH4, GF3) E3
explain (GH2, GH3, GH5) E4
explain (GH2, GH3, GH4, GF3) E5
Natural explanations:
of a natural cause for global warming:
explain (NH1, NH2) NH4
of the evidence:
explain (NH1, NH2, NH4) E1
explain (NH1, NH2, NH3, NH4) E4
Contradictions:
contradict NH4 GH3
contradict NH2 GH2
contradict GH5 SH1
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Thagard, P., Findlay, S. (2010). Changing Minds About Climate Change: Belief Revision, Coherence, and Emotion. In: Olsson, E., Enqvist, S. (eds) Belief Revision meets Philosophy of Science. Logic, Epistemology, and the Unity of Science, vol 21. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9609-8_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9609-8_14
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-9608-1
Online ISBN: 978-90-481-9609-8
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)